The Stimulus Is A Failure

[Dinner]

that doesn't change the fact that the stimulus has had a positive effect

I'd ask you for evidence on this point, but who am I kidding? We all know you don't have any.

I'd flip it around and ask you to prove the additional spending hasn't effected the economy, but who am I kidding? We all know you don't have any.

[Dinner]

The answer is that at least some of the spending has goosed the economy. But it's a tricky business to assign credit-if a start-up hires six people, was it the entrepreneur's vision or the government grant that was responsible? And the jury's still out on all the stimulus money that hasn't even been spent yet.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09/17/business/econwatch/entry5317855.shtml

[Dinner]

Uncle Sam could pay Joe Schlubb $1000 to leave his healthy job building office buildings so that he can build a bridge to nowhere. Net wealth destruction from a single act.

That's true but can you prove that extremely unlikely situation has occurred here in large numbers? Especially given that there just aren't that many office buildings being built right now.

[Kuciwalker]

Dude, I was just providing an extreme example so that Darius could understand what KH was talking about. Go bug the people with actual agendas for evidence that it happens.

[Dinner]

Oh, ok.

[MRT144]

I'd flip it around and ask you to prove the additional spending hasn't effected the economy, but who am I kidding? We all know you don't have any.

Why must you go and try and be a tool.

[Zkribbler]

The signs that it is workiing are everywhere:
(a) When Obama took office, the DJIA was at 8077.56. It is now at 9731.25.
(b) A few days ago, the BBC broadcase a "debate" [really more of a roundtable], with the head of the IMF, a Harvard professor of historical economics, an analyst for Goldman Sacks, a CEO of a Turkish conglomerate, and the French Minister of Finance. They were unanimous in their opinion that the stimulous packages of the various nations were working and that the big danger in the future was that nations would act too quickly to end them.
(c) Most U.S. automakers and the vast majority of banks have not gone bankrupt. Bail-out loans are being repaid early.
(d) Sheer logic: If money is being spent, the economy does better.

And remember, the stimulous package is a two-year program. We're only 1/3 of the way into it. It's still a work in progress.

[Drake Tungsten]

I'd flip it around and ask you to prove the additional spending hasn't effected the economy, but who am I kidding? We all know you don't have any.

I provide evidence every time I bump this thread.

[Straybow]

[Q=Zkribbler;5687974]The signs that it is workiing are everywhere:
(a) When Obama took office, the DJIA was at 8077.56. It is now at 9731.25.[/Q]
That may be evidence that capital is being put into intangibles (stocks and bonds) instead of capital projects (business loans, construction, hiring). In other words, the stimulus multiplier is below 1.0.

(b) A few days ago, the BBC broadcase a "debate" [really more of a roundtable], with the head of the IMF, a Harvard professor of historical economics, an analyst for Goldman Sacks, a CEO of a Turkish conglomerate, and the French Minister of Finance. They were unanimous in their opinion that the stimulous packages of the various nations were working and that the big danger in the future was that nations would act too quickly to end them.

France and Turkey, those two shining examples... the former thinks two-digit unemployment is normal, the latter that mid-two-digit inflation is.

(c) Most U.S. automakers and the vast majority of banks have not gone bankrupt. Bail-out loans are being repaid early.

Ford and, um... I guess you're counting the US subsidiaries of the Japanese. Bailout loans are being repaid early because the companies have decided they'd rather do without than submit to Obama's "wealth-care" czars.

(d) Sheer logic: If money is being spent, the economy does better.

Better than if no money had been spent at all, but not necessarily better than if the market mobilized its own resources to spend money where it is most productive instead of earmark projects.

And remember, the stimulous package is a two-year program. We're only 1/3 of the way into it. It's still a work in progress.

The recession is also a work in progress, and so is congress. The legislation that forced sub-prime loans is still in effect and the legislators who authored it are still in power. They have even better ideas of how to put this economy in the tank they're just dying to implement.

[Kuciwalker]

The signs that it is workiing are everywhere:
(a) When Obama took office, the DJIA was at 8077.56. It is now at 9731.25.
(b) A few days ago, the BBC broadcase a "debate" [really more of a roundtable], with the head of the IMF, a Harvard professor of historical economics, an analyst for Goldman Sacks, a CEO of a Turkish conglomerate, and the French Minister of Finance. They were unanimous in their opinion that the stimulous packages of the various nations were working and that the big danger in the future was that nations would act too quickly to end them.
(c) Most U.S. automakers and the vast majority of banks have not gone bankrupt. Bail-out loans are being repaid early.
(d) Sheer logic: If money is being spent, the economy does better.

None of these except perhaps (b) support your conclusion. (Especially not (c), given that the biggest US automaker DID go bankrupt!)

Think, Zk. Write out the exact thing you are trying to prove. Then, consider exactly what information you would need to know for certain that it was true. (Hint: this information is impossible to acquire.) Then, consider what the next best thing is, that would show the strongest circumstantial evidence in favor of your conclusion.

Man up, Zk. You always run away when I point these things out. Commit yourself to some rigorous thinking for once.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I'd flip it around and ask you to prove the additional spending hasn't effected the economy, but who am I kidding? We all know you don't have any.

So you are telling him to prove a negative... you have heard of that logical fallacy, I hope.

[Kuciwalker]

Yes. While he's at it, Drake is supposed to prove that Obama's election hasn't prevented a dozen major terrorist attacks on the United States.

[Drake Tungsten]

Dude, it totally has. Obama...

[MRT144]

None of these except perhaps (b) support your conclusion. (Especially not (c), given that the biggest US automaker DID go bankrupt!)

Think, Zk. Write out the exact thing you are trying to prove. Then, consider exactly what information you would need to know for certain that it was true. (Hint: this information is impossible to acquire.) Then, consider what the next best thing is, that would show the strongest circumstantial evidence in favor of your conclusion.

Man up, Zk. You always run away when I point these things out. Commit yourself to some rigorous thinking for once.

Even b) is wacky especially when you consider Goldman Sachs has benefited ridiculously through all of the government programs to backstop and relaxing of oversight for their operations. Of course they like eating at the trough.

[DaShi]

Yes. While he's at it, Drake is supposed to prove that Obama's election hasn't prevented a dozen major terrorist attacks on the United States.

Why attack one of their own? More proof that Obama is a muschurian candidate!